Even if it isn't, that doesn't make it any better. Just because both parties suck, doesn't mean they don't both suck.Originally Posted by Loki
Even if it isn't, that doesn't make it any better. Just because both parties suck, doesn't mean they don't both suck.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
And my point is that it's hardly a reason to support one party over the other, which is what Leb and GGT are doing.
Hope is the denial of reality
Then your "point" was based on a false premise.
You're right: that premise being that you're capable of logic.
Hope is the denial of reality
This thread isn't about my logic, but the illogical "strategy" of the GOP.
You mentioned support of one party over the other, but even starting there doesn't explain the GOP's double standards and hypocrisies. If they can't be explained, and they don't make sense, why would anyone support the Republican party? Especially if they start out by vetting candidates based on social issues like abortion, birth control or pro-life agendas, instead of JOBS JOBS JOBS and the economy?
Thing is, like any normal human being, you've decided--for various reasons--that you want to support the Democrats over the Republicans. Now, like any normal human being, you're beginning to provide iffy arguments to rationalise/justify your preference by making the other choice look bad. But, let's face it, these iffy arguments (such as the ones that may be used against both the Democratic party as well as the Republican party) aren't the reasons why you decided to oppose the Republicans and support the Democrats in the first place. It's like you've decided, for various reasons, that you want to oppose Aimless and support GGT. And then, in a heated debate, you start presenting more and more reasons for why Aimless sucks. He spends too much time and energy analysing other people's inner life, for example. It's a criticism you can direct against GGT as well, so it's not really a great argument, on its own, for rejecting Aimless and peeing on his flowers. But it's not really why you rejected Aimless to begin with, so who cares really? If you remove all the shaky arguments you'll still be left with a personal preference for the Democrats that's more or less justified from your PoV.
Point being, be wary of this reflex to tack on more and more shaky arguments. It leads you to entrench yourself in your political position, and it leads you to make arguments that will be exploited in order to discredit your overall position.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't "support" the Democratic party, either. As a political party, they also have their internal struggles. But that doesn't mean I "support" Democrats, simply because their internal conflicts are different than Republicans'.
If someone wants to start a thread about Today's (US) Democratic Party, replete with their hypocrisies or double standards, go for it. I figured it was enough to have one thread about the GOP, and their conflicting "principles". Sure enough....it was. Evidenced by guys like Loki saying it's my illogic, instead of addressing the GOP illogic.
Republicans apparently like Herman Cain over any other candidate. He polls better than Romney, Perry, Paul, Bachmann, or Huntsman.
I'm going to ask the same question, again. Can anyone here explain what today's Republican Party is...or what their principles are? Is Herman Cain the best representative of the GOP?
As has been pointed out before, the Republican party does have a more consistent set of "principles" centered around limited government, low taxation/business regulation and accommodating religious faith. The party fluctuates more on foreign policy and even welfare.
The Democratic party is more of a collection of interest groups, with many wanting something specific from the government for their interest group.
I worried about this a lot during the 2004 elections when I supported Kerry. It is both a strength and a weakness of the Democratic party base. In 2004, many Republicans were able to capitalize on it was a weakness as they swung towards what voters wanted on national security. Or, depending on how you like to look at it, pushed voters towards their contemporary vision on national security.
I notice those "principles" are proclaimed by people like Cheney, who has hawked more arms deals and used more public resources than most people. His connections to the so-called Industrial-Military-complex gave him profits in the millions. His position as VP sealed his golden parachute. It kept him alive with his end-stage cardiac failure, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Is he more "Special" than anyone else with end-stage cardiac failure?
If Cheney had any sense of decency, he'd be fighting for people with cardiac problems that don't have health insurance, and can't get the premiere care he got for himself, on the tax payer's dollar. He's not doing that, though. What a guy, huh.
Both parties cater to special interests, don't kid yourself. Corporate America always expects something from legislators, regardless of party affiliation. I find it curious that PACs and Super PACs "donate" more money to elect "their" candidate, than what would be spent with a 0.5% tax on millionaire income.The Democratic party is more of a collection of interest groups, with many wanting something specific from the government for their interest group.
I worried about this a lot during the 2004 elections when I supported Kerry. It is both a strength and a weakness of the Democratic party base. In 2004, many Republicans were able to capitalize on it was a weakness as they swung towards what voters wanted on national security. Or, depending on how you like to look at it, pushed voters towards their contemporary vision on national security.
Of course both parties cater to special interests. That's got nothing to do with what Dread said. Dread said that the Democratic Party is more or less a collection of distinct and disparate interests groups which don't have all that much in common with each other. The Republican Party is more composed of overlapping interests and has stronger natural cohesion as a result.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And I am asking how "overlapping interests" centered around limited government is a stronger, natural cohesion when it means getting all up in women's bodies, trying to ban abortion and limit birth control, telling gay couples they can't marry, and gays don't belong in the military.
Those are social issues that are part of the religious issues the Republican party flirts with. They are also issues that are very much in flux on both sides of the aisle. It was only 15 years ago that a Democratic president signed the Defense of Marriage act (which another Democratic president has declined to enforce and a Republican candidate basically says is unconstitutional).
And this is, again, progress from 2004, when Republicans used gay marriage plebiscites to boost voter turnout. Which is reprehensible, but also probably wouldn't work again.
No, that wasn't anything like what you'd just posted and I'm not dropping LSD to try and have a coherent conversation with you.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
What if someone else bought the LSD for you and had it delivered direct to your door?
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.
DoMA was introduced by Bob Barr (R) and passed by a Republican-controlled congress. (Since then, both Barr and Clinton have changed their minds.)
How's that Republican push for small, non-intrusive government goin'? What happened to Jobs, Jobs, Jobs? hmmm
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/sho...ll=1#post98629
He's dead, dead, dead.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
How convenient that Clinton changed his mind a wee bit too late.
Anyhoo, I'm not sure what is so hard to understand Dread's (and to a lesser extent, LF's) point. There are some factions of the Democrat Party that would not care one whit if another faction just disappeared (except for the loss of the votes). This may be true to a lesser extent for the Republican Party, but again as it is a lesser extent, they can have a stronger unity. (for better or for worse)
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
1) Law signed by Clinton in 1996.
2) Economy booming in 1996.
3) Can we acknowledge that this is not 1996.
That still doesn't explain how the GOP can have these diametrically opposed positions and remain credible: (1) Small, non-intrusive, libertarian or laissez-faire government and (2) Focus on social and sexual issues from a religious-based ideology.
Because some anti-abortion people think abortion is murder. And most limited-government people think the government should at least prevent murder.
No one has explained why Cain consistently polls as favorite among Republicans, while someone like Huntsman is at the bottom. Some pundits have said Romney and Huntsman are "handicapped" simply because they're Mormons, which means there IS a religious litmus test for getting the GOP nomination. Along with religious-based pro-life requirements to appease their conservative base, first and foremost.
Can any self-avowed (R) here explain or justify this kind of vetting? Are you content with this, and the types of candidates that float to the top?
That's not entirely consistent with their views on capital punishment, or even military interventions, though. It's odd to claim being pro-life, but cheer Executions. It's duplicitous to deny / defund public Education or access to birth control, safety nets for women and children (WIC or HAMP), while refusing to cut military spending.
Last edited by GGT; 10-28-2011 at 03:46 PM.
If you believe that abortion is murder, it's not hard to see how the "murder" of "babies" is not acceptable, while it's acceptable to kill murderers and enemies of war.
If you believe abortion is murder. Which I don't.
Because like you the GOP is incredibly hypocritical. Unlike you, as a mass-organization it's actually understandable and even semi-rational for it to be so two-faced .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't see myself as "incredibly hypocritical", or even how my own opinions could possibly translate as important as an entire political party's.
Do you have to ingest LSD to be comfortable identifying yourself as a Republican?
Enemies of War, huh. You mean like War as approved by congress, or the Bush/Cheney definition that got us into Iraq under false pretenses, or the Obama/NATO definition of a national enemy and killing bin Laden or Qaddafi?
Are you joking or is this endless talking-point recitation how you actually analyze politics?
Seeing perfidy at every turn is not a healthy outlook for politics or life.
All of the above, none of the above, take your pick it doesn't actually matter to the point he was making.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
More like asking how those who identify (and register) as Republicans rectify and organize these things in their own minds. It's a legitimate question, related to "party affiliation", when that "party" seems to cater to the Crazies. Just as Chris Christie said here:
Chris Christie, who is a rather prominent Republican.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
